The 15-year-old girl, who had committed no crime, was held in police cells
overnight on a judge’s orders, before giving evidence that lasted only 22
minutes. Her treatment has prompted urgent inquiries at the highest levels
of the judiciary.

The man who groomed her was more than twice her age and had made the girl
pregnant at 14. She did not want to give evidence because she still had
strong feelings for him, the court in Bradford was told.

Judge Robert

Subscribe now

Login

Already a subscriber?

To see the full article you need to subscribe

Subscribe

Login

Andrew Norfolk and Paul Stokes

The advice is straightforward. Prosecutors must take "such steps as are possible" to reduce to a minimum the anxiety and fear experienced by a child witness during a criminal trial. Examples of best practice do not include arresting a girl and holding her prisoner for 20 hours before she gives evidence.

At Bradford Crown Court last week, everything went wrong from the start.

The trial of Abid Miskeen, 32, for sexual activity with a 14-year-old was placed at the end of a long list of cases, allocated to a judge who had no time to hear it. By the time a free courtroom was found and the case was given to a new judge, Miskeen’s victim, now 15, had vanished. She was a vulnerable girl who was already reluctant to give evidence against the abuser who had groomed her for eight months.

Guidance for judges stresses that "the capacity of a vulnerable witness to give evidence is likely to deteriorate if they are kept waiting".

Similar advice from the Crown Prosecution Service says: "It is good practice to minimise the waiting time at court for children and to arrange for them to be at court for the shortest possible time. Prosecutors should consider using a warning system by pager or text message so that a child can wait until shortly before needed to give evidence, either at home or somewhere away from the court."

Here was a girl from a chaotic family background. She lives in a care home and has not been at school since 11.

She arrived at court at 10am on Wednesday last week, as asked, and was then expected to wait for more than five hours, all the while mulling the prospect of giving evidence against a man for whom she had "strong feelings".

From the legal professionals in Bradford, there seemed to be little evidence of "focus on the needs of the child". When the victim of a serious sexual crime did not do as she was told, she was treated as a criminal.

Prosecuting authorities — an experienced barrister, a CPS solicitor and a police officer — responded to the girl’s decision to leave the court by demanding her arrest and imprisonment. Judge Robert Bartfield granted their wish.

The judge yesterday voiced his regret at the girl’s 20-hour detention but declared himself satisfied that "the interests of justice have been served".

Those who work with child victims of sexual abuse begged to differ. Peter Wanless, chief executive of the NSPCC, described it as "a truly shocking case".

"These actions are not worthy of our internationally renowned justice system and show how far we still have to go to deliver a process that does not further traumatise young or vulnerable victims. All elements of the justice system failed this girl."

Laura Hoyano, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Oxford and the co-author of a book on child-abuse law and policy, said she was "completely astounded" to learn of the young witness’s detention in custody. "This case seems to have been completely mishandled. All the guidance says that young witnesses should not be called before they are needed. When it became clear there was going to be such a long delay they should have sent her home."

Evidence of Miskeen’s guilt was overwhelming. The girl had an abortion at 14, and DNA from the foetus and her clothing was a perfect match for the abuser. His defence was to insist that he had thought she was 16, a claim undermined by the evidence of other witnesses that he attended the girl’s 14th birthday party.

It was unclear last night whether any consideration was given to prosecuting Miskeen without calling evidence from the girl, given her reluctance to participate in the trial. One specialist, who asked not to be named, said evidence from DNA and other prosecution witnesses should have been sufficient to prove the charge.

In a statement last night, the CPS accepted that the decision to hold the girl in custody "was both unwelcome and extremely difficult for the victim".

A CPS spokeswoman said: "Seeking a warrant and remanding a child witness is an exceptional step. All other options were explored and exhausted.

"There was a strong public interest in proceeding [with the trial], to protect not just this victim but other children in the future. The defendant has now been convicted of a very serious sexual offence and awaits sentence."

Prosecutors are understood to believe that had a witness summons been issued for the girl, instead of an arrest warrant, the likelihood was that she would not have attended court voluntarily and that if she did arrive there would have been no way of preventing her from running away again.

Superintendent Vince Firth, of West Yorkshire Police, said the case illustrated "the difficulty of balancing the need to pursue those who abuse children and of protecting and supporting vulnerable victims whose testimony is crucial".

Judge Bartfield said that when the girl was brought into court he explained "the reasons for her detention and my regret that there was no alternative". She "appeared to understand and said she was sorry". Hers is the only apology voiced thus far by anyone involved in the case.